Saturday, August 22, 2015

Life Site News is
doing a good service by forwarding the news of current events that every decent
moral person needs to be aware of. I recommend signing up to that site in order
to receive their emails, by which you may be made aware of the important social
issues of our day.

People who use the
internet to keep up with what’s going on in the real world have learned, in
unvarnished fashion, that Planned Parenthood has been selling, for a long time,
the body parts of aborted infants. Let me repeat: Planned Parenthood is selling
the body parts of aborted infants, which they, of course, would call fetuses. This
is more dark and macabre than any detail you may read about in R. L. Stevenson’s
Body-Snatcher story.

Many of us have seen,
by now, the footage of this woman doctor speaking matter-of-factly about how babies
are hacked up in different ways, under her watch, depending on what body parts
are solicited by the buyers. To make matters even more disgusting, she
discusses this kind of thing while stuffing her face with dinner. I am so glad
that Planned Parenthood’s criminal deeds are being exposed for all to see. The
investigators responsible for this exposure deserve the Nobel Peace Prize that
Barack Hussein Obama got for becoming the first black president.

These practices at Planned Parenthood clinics are not merely inappropriate. They are criminal practices that, in a just society, would warrant the death penalty. We think that we have out-civilized the headhunters of Africa. We have just morphed into a more sophisticated form of headhunting. The sight of this woman eating her fancy dinner while talking about how the next baby should be hacked into pieces, should make you want to have her and her ilk executed by the force of law in a slow-burning electric chair. If you don't want that, then maybe you're on her side, the murdering side, the barbaric, hideous, evil, Satanic side, and you are perilously close to deserving what she deserves.

When sin is allowed to
run rampant on every side in many forms, we tend to shrug off the wickedness
that we are exposed to. And when sins are committed in a sanitized clinic, we
can be deluded into thinking that they are not so bad. When you are outside the
clinic looking in, though, as the case is when viewing the investigative sting
videos, the spectacle strikes you just as it would the victims in a dark story
by Edgar Allan Poe. It is an encouraging sign that comments on youtube
defending Planned Parenthood’s human meat market are few. Planned Parenthood is
about planning abortions, period. Planned Parenthood is about planning murders,
end of story.

Our love for humanity
must judge the iniquity that is going on down the street in Planned Parenthood
centers and other abortion clinics. If our love is not strong enough to judge
the iniquity, then our love will suffer loss. I’m not getting this from my own
philosophical head. The Bible speaks of what happens when iniquity is allowed
to run rampant. “And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax
cold” (Matthew 24.12.) The more wickedness we allow, the more insensitive we
become. The more insensitive we become, the less we care enough to judge. The
less we judge, the more God judges. What the sting videos bring to light should
be our springboard to making all abortions illegal. And we should not be ashamed
or scared in the least to use these revelations that way. The Left commonly
uses clever maneuvers as springboards to realize their aims; the rest of us
should use our indignation as a springboard to righteous laws. For example, the
Left wants to force Christians to bake queer-friendly cakes in order to push
Christian faith into a closet; the rest of us should want to stop the sale of
infant body parts as our first step to preventing these clinics from killing
the babes in the first place.

This has been a
Puritanical opinion on the immoral, illegal practices of Planned Parenthood. The
comments at Life Site News about the secret investigation into Planned
Parenthood, supply the necessary context to the videos that they link to.

Friday, August 21, 2015

I am going to show how
to apply a verse from the Bible in under two minutes. Psalm 9.16 contains the
following statement: “The LORD is known by the judgment which he executeth: the
wicked is snared in the work of his own hands. Higgaion. Selah.”

The meaning is that according
to God’s judgment the wicked are snared by their own devices, and we should
pause and meditate on this fact.

Here is an example of
how this verse is playing itself out before our eyes. Most blacks who voted in
2008 and 2012, voted for Obama, and they did so just because Obama is black, as
if color were a virtue. It turns out that Obama has decided to side with black
thugs against the cops. What happens then? The cops back off and homicides
increase, which is mostly about blacks killing blacks. There is a practical
lesson in poetic justice, a verse of Scripture in action.

True, some whites and
some conservatives are hurt on account of the anarchy, and the nation too. But
the lesson holds. Those who vote for color instead of virtue reap the whirlwind.
You want riots? You want the cops to back off? Blacks will suffer most. If
you’re a ‘black lives matter’ protester, you think about that. Your racist vote
was a snare that you set for yourself.

Saturday, August 15, 2015

Kate Steinle has been laid to rest. She was the thirty-two
year old woman who was killed by the illegal immigrant in sanctuary city: San
Francisco. Francisco Sanchez, the illegal immigrant who murdered her, had been
deported five times and was a convicted felon. He should not have been walking
free on the streets of San Francisco. He should have been in prison, preferably
in one of the filthiest prisons in whatever banana republic he came from. But
the sanctuary city has this lawless policy of harboring ‘criminal aliens’ and
letting them run free within city limits to murder citizens who are minding
their own business and trying to live peaceful lives.

Obama pundits like Richard Fowler, a black man, glaze over
this white woman’s death by stating that ‘comprehensive immigration reform’
could have prevented her murder, for under comprehensive immigration reform,
there would be no need for a sanctuary city, which is where the alien had fled
to. It’s a clever spin to say that, so clever that Fowler couldn’t help smiling
while he made the statement on Fox News. Brand loyalty is more important to a
man like that than sympathy, honor, and respect. The deduction from his
statement would go like this: those who have blocked comprehensive immigration
reform are the ones who are responsible for Kate Steinle’s death. The truth is,
Obama’s comprehensive immigration plan would make every city a sanctuary city, and deaths by illegal aliens would
explode in number, and what happened in San Francisco at the hands of this
dirty illegal immigrant would be multiplied throughout the USA.

There is a question about this grave matter that no one but
me has thought of or that no one but me is assertive enough to ask. Here is the
question that I want an answer to: who did Kate Steinle vote for? Who did Kate
Steinle vote for in 2008? Who did Kate Steinle vote for in 2012? I am not going
to say that she deserved what she got if she voted for Obama. But I will say
that if she voted for him, she reaped what she sowed. True, if she and enough
other citizens had voted for John McCain in 2008 and Mitt Romney in 2012, the
illegal alien might have been in San Francisco in 2015 anyway, and she might
have been killed by him in the same fashion anyway. But by voting for Obama,
the crime that became Kate Steinle’s fate had the best chance of all of coming
to pass.

This woman was pretty and white and happy and fun. White
lives matter. She is not alive today because it was her time to die and because
God had numbered her days to go no farther than they did. That’s all true. But
it’s also true that it is the present Administration’s fault that she is not
alive. Sanchez is the murderer; Obama and his Marxist crew are the enablers.
Sanchez should already have been hung on the gallows for what he did. Everyone
who wants a stern immigration system in place that would prevent illegal aliens
from entering the country and committing dastardly deeds ought to use this case
as much as they can: to further the cause against illegal immigration, and to
further the cause of alien deportation.

But back to this question: who did Kate Steinle vote for? It
matters either way. If she did not vote for Obama, then she reaped what others
have sown, which is an argument for conservatives to push harder for laws
against illegal immigration to be executed in full force. If she voted for
Obama, then she reaped what she was guilty herself of sowing, which is an
argument for some conservative change in the liberal camp. Kate Steinle was
killed by a random bullet by an illegal alien. It’s the kind of death that can
happen to anyone at any time virtually anywhere in America, especially in a sanctuary
city like San Francisco, which is the sort of place that is most popular with
liberal democrats who follow President Hussein Obama just as drones do their
imperial bee.

You people who vote with blind regularity for liberal,
socialist, Marxist candidates whose purpose it is to ‘fundamentally transform’
the nation into something your ancestors would not recognize nor want to live
in, listen up. “Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man
soweth, that shall he also reap” (Galatians 6.7.) This verse has a deeper
meaning than my application of it here. But my application is still legitimate,
and here it is: when you sow bad politics, don’t be surprised if you reap
rotten rewards. You might reap small or you might reap large. But you will reap
in some way at some time because of who you voted for. You could lose your job.
You could lose your self-respect. You could lose your life.

This has been a Puritanical opinion on the death of Kate
Steinle and the question that we should all be asking: who did she vote for?

Friday, August 14, 2015

There are some people who believe that we should never
mention the name of a mass murderer because naming him gives him the
recognition that he is after. Avoiding his name does not reverse the fact: a
young man called Dylann Roof shot nine black Americans to death in a church in
Charleston, South Carolina. Pretending a man does not exist will not make it
so. In fact, pretense is the friend of shortsightedness; the former may give
rise to the latter. And a shortsighted vision may lead us by the hand to do
things that are so awry that they may fit in with the mass murderer’s own
scheme. The same Americans who refuse to mention the name of this mass murderer
are inadvertently forwarding the deeper object that the mass murderer had in
mind. Dylann Roof wanted recognition; but he wanted something more: he wanted to
begin a race war.

How are Americans forwarding the race war that Dylann Roof
wanted to initiate? First, know this: the race war was already on before Roof
murdered those people. The cause of the race war may be traced back to
influential, despicable characters such as President Obama, Eric Holder, and Al
Sharpton. It may be traced back to the war on cops that such characters have
kicked off. I feel sorry for all the good blacks out there, don’t you? The
blacks at the top are not role models, but malevolent rogues.

When we live in denial, we tend to do things that will give
us a sense that we are rectifying the problem that we deny exists. This makes
us feel better in the moment. But it allows the problem to fester, continue,
and grow. The real problem is this: treating blacks like they have a right to
break the law as payback for the slavery of their ancestors. And their breaking
the law with impunity limits the freedom of those who obey the law. Taking
Confederate flags down just sends the signal that blacks can keep pushing, keep
breaking the law, and keep limiting the freedom of others, and it tempts them
to push the envelope more and more, which is how the race war that Dylann Roof
wanted, is fostered and furthered. True, there were no riots after this mass
murder. That is a good thing in itself. But using this mass murder as an excuse
to tear down Confederate flags will yield long-term consequences that are much worse
than one single riot.

When the first Confederate flag was taken down on account of
this mass murder, a friend of mine exclaimed: Dylann Roof won. True, he did
win. When the powers-that-be decided to start a witch hunt against Confederate
flags, the decision honored Dylann Roof because at some point the progressive removal
of Confederate flags and monuments will not be tolerated by Southerners, and
the race war that Dylann Roof wanted will be advanced by their resistance. The
race war that Dylann Roof was shooting for will be stepped up each time a flag
is taken down, a monument is removed, or a street is renamed.

It is an unpopular thing to say, and I’m not on Roof’s side,
of course, but he did win, and the Republicans, not just the Democrats, helped
him get the victory. The Republican forefathers who ended slavery would not be
impressed by that, to say the least. They would not be pleased to learn that
their brand has helped to undo the unity, equality, and peace that they aimed
to put into practice. Dylann Roof’s race-war-dream is coming true. President
Obama and his race-war-henchmen are all hyped up for that, for anarchy is the
tool of tyranny. Dylann Roof has been honored so much by Confederate flag removals
that some race peddler might as well call for a statue to be erected in his
honor in Washington D. C. Because of our fear and weakness, we have fallen down
before Dylann Roof and the race mongers. “A righteous man falling down before
the wicked is a troubled fountain, and a corrupt spring” (Proverbs 25.26.) It
is a stretch to say that the average American man is righteous. And so if it is
true to say that a ‘righteous’ man who falls before the wicked is corrupt, what
shall we say of the ‘unrighteous’ man?

This has been a Puritanical opinion on
the race war that weak-spirited, short-sighted American citizens are helping
Dylann Roof to accelerate.

Wednesday, August 12, 2015

Fox News got to moderate the first republican debate in view
of the 2016 election of the next President of the United States. The debate was
not that bad, considering all the candidates that had to be juggled by the
moderators. But Fox News had a dual agenda: to delegitimize Donald Trump
particularly, and to make every candidate who is not a status quo crook, appear
extreme. This they did, in part, by their question about who receives a word
from God. The attack on Trump was the most obvious sin. I will stick to that
issue for now.

What are political debates supposed to be about? They are
supposed to be a platform for discussing policies. If the ethics of the
candidates ought to be questioned by a moderator, surely some sins more
substantial should be alluded to than name-calling! Everyone has figured out
that Fox News rigged this debate in such a way as to make Donald Trump look
bad. And they put Megyn Kelly front and center to do the dirty work since it is
politically incorrect for a man to rebuke a woman.

Listen to this observation from a man of ancient times called
Publilius Syrus: aut [out] amat aut [out] odit mulier [mulliere], nihil est
tertium. What does that mean? It means this: ‘a woman either loves or hates,
there is no third course.’ Lots of truth in that generalization. Megyn Kelly
has no third course for Donald Trump. But a professional moderator would have
stifled her hatred in order to do what a moderator is called to do.

Because of the tabloid feel of her show, I have resolved to quit
tuning into Megyn Kelly many times. Maybe now, after her brutal, unfair
treatment of Donald Trump, I will be more able to keep to that resolution.
Donald Trump gave a good enough answer to Kelly’s whining question about
name-calling. We should not expect someone to give as good an answer on the
fly, as what we, after careful meditation, can come up with. But what might have
been an even better answer than Donald Trump’s answer to Kelly’s clever
question? He might have said this: “Megyn, you can add one more insult to your
list. Here it is: Megyn Kelly is a bimbo for asking a trashy, tacky question
when she is supposed to be moderating a political debate.” Or, he might have
said this: “Megyn, this is not the ‘Kelly File’; and the ‘Entertainment
Tonight’ format should not apply when you’re moderating a political debate.
This is not about Megyn Kelly and her ratings. It’s about facilitating a debate
by which the next candidate for President of the United States will be chosen.”

This has been a Puritanical opinion on Fox News’
use of Megan Kelly to smear one of the few men who is brave enough to stand up
to big government, politically-correct, media-sensitive politicians.

Tuesday, August 11, 2015

I just finished listening to CBC Radio’s ‘Ideas,’ hosted by
Paul Kennedy. Tonite’s show was probably a repeat, and had to do with
Christopher Hedges and his ideas on war. Hedges is a Pulitzer Prize winning
author, and a former war correspondent for the New York Times. The reason he
was on the ‘Ideas’ program is because his views on war agree with those that
are espoused by the CBC: the Americans are bad; their enemies are good.

The program is what you might call a ‘mash-up’: clips from a
speech that Hedges gave at Ryerson University, and an interview with him about
the subject of the speech: ‘War is a Force that Gives Life Meaning.’ The title
is a put down on all wars, even just wars, by the use of sarcasm.
Hedges does not believe that just wars are possible. He calls the wars that we
have engaged in of late, ‘revenge killings,’ which he denounces. I guess this
means that he doesn’t believe in bringing terrorists to justice. We condemn
killers as subhuman savages, he complains. I guess we should use more polite
language when referring to people who fly jets into skyscrapers and who hack people’s
heads off in the name of Allah.

Americans have decapitated more people than Isis has, he
maintains. He must be talking about so-called ‘collateral damage.’ He does not
notice the difference, which is this: during
war, Americans try not to kill anyone but the terrorists; the terrorists, on
the other hand, with or without an
official war, try to kill men, women, and children without distinction.

He complains of people inventing ways to kill and of taking
trophies from their victims, wanting us to make the deduction that it’s the
Americans who do this. But it is exactly what the Muslim terrorists do.

Not surprisingly, Hedges is against Israel, not just America.
He speaks of the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians as ‘Israel’s
assaults on Gaza.’ He speaks of Israel’s defensive maneuvers as if they were
equal to beheadings.

So understand this: Israel reluctantly and carefully defends
itself against its aggressors—its aggressors who hide their weapons behind
their children, and Hedges equates this defense with beheading people!

Israel does everything it can do to go around the children
that Palestinians place before their weapons, and Hedges equates this to beheadings!
(I have written a fable about Israel’s conflict with Muslims in Gaza. I have
pasted the link to it in my ‘description’ below.)

Hedges will not call himself a pacifist, which is kind of
smart since he had seven armed bodyguards to keep him safe in Iraq. He does not
believe in war; but he is willing to have people risk their lives and to kill
others, if need be, just to keep him
safe during a war! How convenient
and contradictory!

Hedges’ opposition to war does not come from any solid
argumentation. It comes from an emotional reaction that he had from being a war
correspondent. He got ‘burned out’ doing that job; so now he’s against all war,
no matter how just. He came close to suicide because of what he saw and
experienced, and so now he’s against war at any cost. Did he not choose his
line of work? He should not foist his opinions on the public unless he can
support them with something a little more substantial than a ‘burnout’! What’s
his answer to the Isis problem? The same as President Barach Hussein Obama’s: vacate
the Middle-East. And what is happening? Muslim extremists are murdering
everyone in their path in their object to take the Middle-East over!

Though Hedges has nothing but his emotions to support his
position, the CBC host ends the interview with him as if Hedges has the best
and final word on the subject of war! Yes, Paul Kennedy finishes by saying
‘thank you very much’ in that fawning whisper that CBC reserves for its
favorite propagandists.

If the clips that Kennedy includes in this program are
anything to judge the speech by, Hedges quotes more from Greek mythology than
from the Bible. He’s an ordained Presbyterian minister as well as a prize-winning
journalist. So maybe he should quote more often from the Bible. What did he
read when he was out there being a war correspondent? He read what most
liberals hope they will someday be able to stomach: the writings of Marcel Proust.
If he had read the Bible more, maybe he would know that Calvinism is far from
dark, that faith is more than just the ability to believe in the good, and that
the Bible firmly supports acts of war against wicked aggressors.

Here is the Bible’s position on war, from Ecclesiastes 3.8:
“a time to love, a time to hate; a time
of war, and a time of peace.” When Muslim terrorists come after you with
mean intentions, it’s ‘a time of war,’ just like Solomon said. Is the New
Testament in conflict with that verse from Ecclesiastes? Hear this, from Romans
13.4: “For he [meaning your ruler] is a minister of God to thee for good. But
if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain:
for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth
evil.” Now if our ruler is supposed to be a minister of God to us for good, and
if it is not good for us to be beheaded by Muslim fanatics, then the minister
of God should take revenge on Muslim fanatics who are out to behead us.

And this has been a Puritanical opinion on the
subject of war as put forth by Christopher Hedges, Paul Kennedy, and the CBC.